DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Terrazas, 944 P.2d 1194.

134 citing documents.

  • State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
    Although the jury must ultimately determine whether the other act is proved, “before admitting evidence of prior bad acts, trial judges must find that there is clear and convincing proof both as to the commission of the other bad act and that the defendant committed the act.”
  • State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (holding the state bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the other act occurred and that the defendant committed the act).
  • State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    “Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    163 ¶ 37, -84 , -98 (1997); , 274-75 ¶ 24, -11 (App.1999).
  • State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    ¶ 2 In the second petition for post-conviction relief, French raised the following claims: (1) , was a significant change in law, requiring the state to show that an accused committed other acts by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the court’s instruction characterizing prior acts as “bad acts” , (3) the sentence h
  • State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed prior bad acts).
  • State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
    404(b) (West Supp.1998); , Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 61 , 906 P.2d at 594 ; Williams, 182 Ariz. at 552 , 898 P.2d at 501
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    -84 , -98 (1997); , Ariz. R. Evid.
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    The defendant argues that the court articulated an improper standard since “to be admissible in a criminal case, the profferer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the prior bad acts were committed and that the defendant committed the acts,”
  • State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997